RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the reporting period ending 16 Nov 09 be removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. The contested report reflects multiple untrue and inaccurate statements (see her personal memorandum at Exhibit A). She had a goal of becoming a Professional Military Education (PME) Instructor for over 5 years and finally obtained an instructor slot. While attending the Enlisted Professional Military Education Instructor Course (EPMEIC) she requested a humanitarian reassignment due to her husband not getting transferred with her and she believed they would soon be facing a financial hardship. At first it looked promising that her husband would transfer to McGhee-Tyson, TN, where she would be assigned as an instructor. Though, the closer she got to her departure, they realized his transfer may not happen. As she prepared to depart for her training and their house on the market for over 4 months, she addressed her concern with her commander and first sergeant that she was worried about facing a financial hardship. She continued on her TDY to Gunter Annex for instructor training when she was told by her husband that the state of Tennessee put a hiring “freeze” on all GS positions. Thereafter, she met with the acting first sergeant and dean of the school who told her she needed to meet with the chief to find out if the chief would consider her request for a humanitarian reassignment due to a financial hardship. The chief asked her about her profile for her knee; the chief told her that she could push the profile issue and have her placed back in the 4N assignment pool. She did not wish to pursue the profile because she still had a desire to become an instructor. The chief also stated he did not need anything in writing, that her verbal word was enough for him only to find out the next day the dean drafted a Memorandum for Record (MFR) stating she was being removed from the EPMEIC course because she “exhibited behaviors of self pity” and was “not consistent with what is expected of a professional NCO and is deficient in her military bearing and appearance.” The chief also stated that she had “expressed that she no longer desires to be an NCO Academy Instructor” and that she “lacked the personal excellence and maturity necessary and required to fulfill duties and to maintain the highest standards of integrity as an 8T000 NCO Academy Instructor.” This language is reflected in her EPR. She was then given two choices; either file a humanitarian reassignment package, or be put back into the 4N assignment pool. She requested a humanitarian reassignment; however, her request was disapproved. 2. She has never been counseled, either verbally or written, on her military bearing and appearance. She never expressed that she no longer desired to become an instructor. She believes she did what it took in advance in order to not have to file bankruptcy and end up in her commander’s office explaining her situation. 3. She will continue to serve as the stellar NCO that she has always been; the same NCO who earned “firewall 5s;” and the same NCO who earns letters of recommendation and medals throughout her career. In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of the contested report, a copy of the referral documentation w/atchs, a copy of the MFR, and copies of letters of recommendation. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), having been promoted to that grade with an effective date and a date of rank of 1 Mar 07. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 16 Nov 09: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION * 16 Nov 09 4 20 Apr 09 5 30 Apr 08 5 30 Apr 07 5 30 Apr 06 5 30 Apr 05 5 * Contested Report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the application and recommended denial. DPSID notes the applicant’s assertions; however, she fails to provide any information from the rating chain on the contested report to support her claims. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. DPSID acknowledges the applicant’s assertion regarding the lack of feedback during the reporting period; nevertheless, according to the governing instruction, because feedback may not have been accomplished, it by itself is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. In this case, it appears the feedback was not accomplished; therefore, DPSID does not recommend voiding the EPR, but recommends changing the feedback date to reflect N/A, with the following statement “Feedback was not accomplished due to administrative oversight.” The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE addresses supplemental promotion consideration. DPSOE states that if the applicant’s request to remove her EPR from her records is granted, she would become eligible for supplemental consideration beginning with cycle 10E7. However, DPSOE notes that if she meets supplemental consideration it would not serve a useful purpose because her total score would not increase sufficiently to meet the promotion cutoff score required for selection. Her score for cycle 10E7 was 286.50 and the score required for selection for promotion to master sergeant was 325.14. If her EPR is removed she will only gain 6 points, still not enough for promotion. The DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we believe the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the EPR in question is a true and accurate portrayal of her performance and demonstrated potential during the reporting period in question. We took note of AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation regarding the feedback portion; however, we do not believe this to be the appropriate remedy. In view of the totality of the circumstances involved, it is conceivable that the rating on the report in question was based on possible miscommunication and not on the applicant’s performance and potential. Furthermore, in looking at the applicant’s overall record prior to the contested report, we have some doubt as to whether the contested report is accurate as written. Consequently, we elect to resolve any doubt in favor of the applicant. In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we recommend the EPR be declared void and removed from her records. Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. The Enlisted Performance Report (AB thru TSgt), AF Form 910, rendered for the period 1 May 2009 through 16 November 2009 be declared void and removed from her records. b. It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E7. c. If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual’s qualification for the promotion. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01984 in Executive Session on 1 Feb 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence for was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Jul 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Jul 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 10.